Radical Judges: Activist judges, largely appointed by liberal
presidents, are interpreting the law in ways that the Founding
Fathers never intended. Bans, for instance, on students saying
the Pledge of Allegiance but determining the burning of the American
flag in protected by the Constitution.

Judicial Emergencies: Several courts in America that are
considered "judicial emergencies" because they don't
have enough active judges to handle caseloads. President Bush
has nominated many fine candidates, but a liberal minority in
the Senate has stopped confirmation proceedings on many of them
through administrative holds and filibusters that prevent timely
votes.

Brain Drain: Because of obstructionism, nominees such as
Patricia Owen have waited since May 2001 -- over 1,000 days --
to get a hearing and a vote. Nominee Miguel Estrada withdrew his
name from consideration after it was clear no headway was being
made in his confirmation. If this obstructionism continues, fewer
talented attorneys, judges and law professors will agree to be
nominated for federal judgeships.

Staff Crisis: After memos from the Senate Judiciary Committee
painted a picture of a Committee virtually run by liberal special
interests during the chairmanship of liberal Senator Pat Leahy
were made public, those who should have been answering to these
grave charges instead brilliantly spun the scandal into a hunt
for who "leaked" the memos. Several conservative staffers
are suspended, and a senior aide to Majority Leader Bill Frist
is now considered likely to lose his job based on circumstantial
evidence and the howls of the opposition. If he is fired, it will
have a chilling effect on conservative staffers and enrage conservative
allies.

Who's to blame? The liberal obstructionist minority definitely
bears a lion's share. But the President Bush, Senate Majority
Leader Frist and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch also
bear a significant amount of responsibility for failing to resolve
or at least ameliorate the crisis.

During the President's State of the Union Address and his press
conference the day after Saddam Hussein was captured, the President
had ample opportunity to address the judicial crisis to a large
segment of the American people who don't know it exists. He didn't.

White House officials say the President addresses the issue in
speeches on the road to rapturous applause, but using it as fodder
at fundraisers isn't going to help nominees like Janice Rogers
Brown. He took the time to discuss things that are apparently
priorities to him such as Medicare restructuring, lawsuit abuse,
tax reform and steroid abuse (in the State of the Union only),
but not the plight of nominee Carolyn Kuhl. Conservatives -- who
believe their issues are being largely overlooked at a time when
they are asked to commit to another four years of Bush's leadership
-- are taking note.

In the Senate, Frist and Hatch are allowing the real issue to
be spun away. Over $500,000 in taxpayer money has already been
spent tracking down the source of a few "leaked memos"
(memos containing no national security secrets that had left in
an open area of a computer system by Democratic staffers, subsequently
made public by Republican staff). No attention, however, is being
paid to the fact that Elaine Jones -- the head of the NAACP legal
arm and a key figure in the memos -- resigned her position after
a complaint was filed regarding her potentially unethical behavior
reported in the memos. No one is disputing the content of the
memos, but the only ones who seem to be under the interrogation
lights are the conservatives -- who have thus far not been found
to have done anything wrong.

In fact, to the extent the memos reveal wrongdoing, their public
release should be termed whistle blowing and it should be applauded.

Conservatives have been told to look to the 2004 elections as
the only way to break the legislative logjam that is central to
this judicial crisis. However, those who hope to see judicial
nominees receive timely up-or-down votes in the U.S. Senate were
given the same speech in 2002. Unless decisive action is taken
now, many will lose faith in this President and this Senate leadership
as committed to true judicial reform.

-by David Almasi
David Almasi is executive director of The National Center for
Public Policy Research. Contact the author at [email protected]

Legal Briefs readers will recall
that last year two women, Grace Fuller, 49, and Louise Sawyer,
46, who are sisters, filed a discrimination lawsuit against Southwest
Airlines because a 25-year-old flight attendant asked passengers
to be seated by saying "Eenie, meenie, minie, moe; pick a
seat, we gotta go."

The plaintiffs said mere use of the rhyme, which in times past
was sometimes said with the "n-word" within it in the
spot most children now grace with the word "tiger,"
was so racist it caused Fuller to have two seizures and be bedridden
for three days.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes, the rhyme
historically has been said with various words, including: tinkers,
chickens, spiders, beggars, Frenchmen, sailors, young men and
various others.

A federal jury was unimpressed by the women's claim, taking just
an hour January 22 to toss out their complaint. But federal taxpayers
still had to foot the bill for the two-day trial.

Meanwhile, no word from the plaintiffs if using the words "catch"
or "toe," and perhaps even "a," all of which
appeared in the old "n-word" version of the piece, are
racist acts worthy of litigation in federal court.

"It's not just President
Bush who thinks that there too many lawsuits, too many avaricious
trial lawyers. More than three-quarters of Americans expressed
similar sentiments in a survey released last year by the American
Tort Reform Association. And nearly half supported tort reform
as a means to curb the more frivolous lawsuits.

How far would Americans go to rein in the trial lawyers? A Gallup
Poll last year on medical malpractice litigation offered a clue.

Nearly three-quarters favored a limit on the amount patients can
be awarded for their pain and suffering. Nearly two-thirds favored
a limit on the amount that patients can be awarded as punishment
to doctors for negligence or carelessness."